1. science
2. ecology
3. pollution

NRDC Issue Paper
July 2008
Fish Out of Water
How Water Management in the
Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of
California’s Salmon Fishery
Lead Author
Doug Obegi
Natural Resources Defense Council
Contributing Authors
Barry Nelson
Kristina Ortez
Kate Poole
Morgan Levy
Natural Resources Defense Council
Foreword Authors
Zeke Grader
Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations
Dick Pool
Water-4-Fish
Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
About NRDC
NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) is a national nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.2
million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have
worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York
City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge our scientific reviewers, whose expertise and insight greatly improved this paper. In
addition, we would like to thank Crossley Pinkstaff for her assistance in preparing the graphs and charts for this
paper, and Monty Schmitt for his editorial assistance.
We would also like to thank Environment Now, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Rose Foundation
for Communities and the Environment, Atticus Trust, George Miller and Janet McKinley, and Faye and Sandor
Straus for their generous support.
NRDC Director of Communications: Phil Gutis
NRDC Marketing and Operations Director: Alexandra Kennaugh
NRDC Publications Manager: Lisa Goffredi
NRDC Publications Editor: Anthony Clark
Production: Tanja Bos, [email protected]
Copyright 2008 by the Natural Resources Defense Council.
For additional copies of this report, send $5.00 plus $3.95 shipping and handling to NRDC Publications Department, 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011.
California residents must add 7.5% sales tax. Please make checks payable to NRDC in U.S. dollars. The report is also available online at www.nrdc.org/policy.
This report is printed on paper that is 100 percent post-consumer recycled fiber, processed chlorine free.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 2 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Table of Contents
Foreword
4
Executive Summary
5
Chapter 1: The Collapse of California’s Salmon Populations
9
Chapter 2: The Role of California’s State and Federal Water Projects in the Collapse of
the Salmon Fishery
14
Chapter 3: Existing Legal Protections for Salmon 19
Chapter 4: Emerging Threats to Salmon From Water Projects
23
Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations
26
Endnotes
30
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 3 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Foreword
by Dick Pool and Zeke Grader
On May 1, 2008, a quiet disaster unfolded along the coast of California and Oregon. Commercial and recreational
fishermen and women did not set their lines. Rods did not bend, reels did not scream, and nets did not fly. Due to
record low levels of salmon stocks, the salmon fisheries in California and most of Oregon were closed for the first
time ever.
This closure is among the nation’s worst man-made fisheries disasters. It is on par with the loss of the Atlantic cod
fishery, and its economic impact for the fishing industry is comparable to the losses that followed the Exxon Valdez oil
spill. And now all of us—especially the 2.4 million fishermen in the state—are paying the price.
The San Francisco Bay-Delta and its rivers are the backbone of our industry, accounting for two-thirds of California’s
salmon catch. But now the West Coast’s largest estuary is imperiled. The amount of water exported out of the Delta has
increased steadily. In 2005 California set an all-time record for diversions from the Bay-Delta. As a result we have seen a
precipitous drop in our native salmon population in the last few years, and their numbers have dwindled to the point
of collapse.
As part of a community that depends on healthy fisheries for its livelihood, we saw the signs early on. Corporate
agricultural interests demanded more and more water, and the federal and state agencies let them have it. These agencies
failed to uphold their obligation to protect fisheries. Political appointees skirted the law and overruled federal scientists
to produce shoddy biological opinions. Yet more water—water needed to maintain salmon habitat—was taken out of
our rivers.
The economic disaster of the salmon fishery collapse affects everyone we know. A survey of 49 leading charter boats
from Monterey to Fort Bragg found that the income loss from the closure of salmon fishing will total $5.4 million.
Each charter boat has a crew, and those crews have families to support. How long can these boat operators weather this
loss? We simply don’t know. And this is just one part of the problem. Salmon support a quarter-billion-dollar industry
in California, which includes restaurants, processors, and local businesses. The collapse affects consumers and restaurant
patrons. In a typical year more than 5 million pounds of California premium salmon is enjoyed by diners all over the
country. Salmon is one of the most healthful and high protein foods on the planet.
But the economic losses stemming from the salmon collapse don’t paint the whole picture. The hundreds of thousands
of men and women who fish commercially or recreationally know the deep connection between this iconic fish and the
culture of California. Salmon fishing is our birthright as Californians. From the Smith River to the San Joaquin, our
salmon ran wild from the beginning of our statehood. What we have now is a failure by the entire state to protect this
shared resource.
We are fishermen, and we represent and work with fishermen across the state. We hear the blame placed on ocean
conditions or overfishing. We don’t buy it. Our people have done their part. We have limited our take. We have
volunteered thousands of hours to cleaning up the bay and rivers. We pay to support restoration efforts. We have obeyed
the law. We have given congressional testimony and have activated tens of thousands of fishermen across the state. We
are on the front lines. And we know the solutions to this problem are in front of us. It’s simple: Fish need water.
Today we must act to save the salmon, our industry, and our communities. To do this we must change the way we
manage water in the state to allow more water to stay in our rivers—especially in the Bay-Delta ecosystem. To make
sure that happens, our leaders must do all they can—including pursuing the real solutions outlined in the pages that
follow—and we must each make choices in our own lives that help to conserve water. We believe that we can bring back
our fishery. If we do the right thing and put water back in our rivers, we can save our salmon, and save our birthright.
Dick Pool is a recreational fisherman, tackle manufacturer, and organizer of the Water-4-Fish campaign. Zeke Grader is the
executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 4 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Executive Summary
C
hinook are magnificent fish, and their presence is an indicator of a healthy
ecosystem. They are prized as a healthful food, valued by recreational and
commercial fishermen, and play a central role in the culture of many of
California’s Native American tribes. Chinook sustain local economies from the central
coast of California to Oregon; commercial fishermen, charter boat operators, fish
processors, hotels, and restaurants all depend on healthy salmon runs. But the future
of salmon in California is at a crossroads.
California faces the possibility of becoming a state where salmon fishing is a thing of the past and where wild,
locally caught California salmon permanently vanishes from restaurant menus and supermarkets. In April 2008,
state and federal agencies took the unprecedented step of completely closing the commercial fishery for Chinook
salmon and all but entirely closed the recreational fishery. The closure was necessary because the numbers of salmon
returning to the Sacramento River, which have recently been the backbone of California’s salmon fisheries, have
fallen to record lows. And next year’s run could be even worse.
Several causes have contributed to the decline of Chinook salmon and steelhead, including poor ocean
conditions (possibly caused by global warming), water pollution, and invasive species. Although there are a
complex host of factors, one of the most significant—and reversible—is the operation of the State Water Project
and Central Valley Project. First, exporting water from the Delta has required changes to the operation of upstream
reservoirs, which reduces the cold, clean water needed for salmon to migrate and spawn. Second, many dams block
salmon from migrating to their spawning grounds. And third, the giant pumps in the Delta used to export this
water kill tens of thousands of juvenile salmon each year. A federal judge recently found that approximately 40
percent of some populations of juvenile salmon are killed by the water projects before they reach the ocean, and
that plans approved by the federal government in 2004 to operate the water projects to export more water could
increase mortality rates up to 66 percent for some species.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 5 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Salmon Species in California
Steelhead and the five species of Pacific
salmon are anadromous fish, meaning
that they are born in freshwater,
migrate out to the ocean where they
spend several years, and then return
to reproduce in the rivers where they
were born. Several species of salmon
are native to California, most notably
Chinook (“king”) salmon, coho
salmon, and steelhead (steelhead are the
anadromous form of rainbow trout).1
Salmon and steelhead continue to spawn
in rivers and streams up and down the
Pacific Coast of North America and
throughout California, from steelhead in
© Tom and Pat Leeson Photography
Migrating Chinook salmon
Southern California, to coho in coastal
streams such as Lagunitas Creek, to Chinook in major rivers such as the Sacramento and Klamath. Historically,
the largest salmon runs on the West Coast migrated up the Columbia River, California’s Central Valley river
system, and the Klamath River.2 Salmon runs across the West Coast have been in trouble for decades. Since
1989, when Sacramento winter-run Chinook were first designated as threatened under the federal Endangered
Species Act, 26 unique populations of Pacific coast salmon have been listed as threatened or endangered.3 In
recent years, Central Valley fall-run Chinook became the workhorse of California’s salmon fisheries as other
salmon populations (especially Klamath River Chinook and coho in rivers throughout northern and central
California) declined. Now the Central Valley fall run is succumbing to the same pressures that have befallen
other runs.
The Central Valley runs support many of the state’s sport and commercial fisheries, and new information
suggests that changes to state and federal water projects are putting these runs at even greater risk. The decline
of the salmon runs (particularly Chinook) that migrate through the Delta to spawn on the Sacramento, San
Joaquin, and other rivers provide a clear message. We must act now to save California’s salmon and steelhead,
and the commercial and recreational fishing they support, or they may disappear forever.
The impacts of operating major water projects in the state with a business-as-usual approach that neglects
the plight of salmon would be far-reaching: no locally-caught, wild salmon available on restaurant menus or at
the market; fishing boats tied up at the dock, with fishermen, river guides, and local communities devastated by
the economic losses; and the health of our rivers in jeopardy because of the loss of an integral part of the river
ecosystem.
Fortunately, we can solve these problems and restore healthy salmon runs while still meeting the water needs of
the public. We can reduce diversions from the Bay-Delta ecosystem and develop fish-friendly ways to replace the
water needed for people, including investments in water conservation, efficiency, groundwater management, water
recycling, and urban stormwater management. We can develop better ways to divert water so that some of the dams
could be eliminated, allowing salmon to reach their spawning habitat. And we can restore fish habitat and improve
water quality.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 6 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
The Bay-Delta
Watershed
and Major
Projects
The Bay-Delta Watershed
and
Major Water
Projects
Shasta
Lake
Red Bluff
Diversion Dam
ver
Sacramento Ri
Contra Costa
Canal
Delta
Pumps
Lake
Oroville
Folsom
Lake
Mokelumne
Aqueduct
New Melones
Lake
Hetch Hetchy
Aqueduct
nJ
Sa
Los Vaqueros
Reservoir
oa
i
in R
San Luis
Reservoir
qu
ve
r
Millerton
Lake
Delta-Mendota
Canal
San Luis
Canal
Los Angeles
Aqueduct
Bay-Delta Watershed
California
Aqueduct
Delta
Engineering Projects
Federal
Colorado River
Aqueduct
State
State and Federal
Local
San Diego
Aqueducts
Coachella
Canal
All American
Canal
Salmon are tough, resilient fish. When we have made concerted efforts to recover California’s salmon
populations, the fish have returned. When we made more water available for Central California Chinook salmon
in the 1990s, and made other changes to better protect salmon habitat, their numbers rebounded. In addition,
although the Central Valley Project eliminated salmon from spawning in the San Joaquin River decades ago, state
and federal governments, environmentalists, and water users are now collaborating on a historic multiyear effort
to restore flows and salmon to the river. And habitat restoration measures in the past decade have dramatically
increased the numbers of spring-run Chinook returning to spawn in Butte Creek.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 7 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
These measures alone, however, are not enough. Restoring central California’s salmon populations will
require state and federal agencies and legislators to make salmon restoration a high priority and to take prompt
and comprehensive action. If they fail to do so, California’s Chinook salmon fishery could be lost forever.
Unfortunately, state and federal agencies are considering several actions that could further worsen conditions for
salmon in the San Francisco Bay-Delta watershed.
The future of California’s salmon, and the futures of the many people who depend on these fish, will be
determined during the next few years. We must act quickly and adopt comprehensive solutions to protect this
treasured resource and avoid disaster. We urge the governor, legislature, and state and federal agencies to take
prompt action to:
4Implement the State’s Salmon Doubling Goal: The Governor should issue an executive order making the
recovery of salmon runs, and achieving the state’s existing salmon doubling requirement, a high priority for
all state agencies working on water issues, including the Department of Fish and Game, the Department of
Water Resources and the State Water Resources Control Board. The executive order should require the state’s
doubling goal and salmon recovery to be key goals of the strategic plan under development by the Delta Vision
Task Force and of the plan being developed by the Bay Delta Conservation Plan process.
4Reduce Water Diversions: Reduction of water withdrawals from the Bay-Delta ecosystem in order to meet the
habitat needs of salmon and to restore environmental health and sustainable fisheries. To meet water supply
needs, California should dramatically increase investments in fish-friendly water supply alternatives, including
water conservation, water recycling, groundwater management, and urban stormwater management. In the
current legislative session, the legislature and the governor can enact AB 2175, a water conservation bill that
would reduce per capita water use by 20 percent by 2020.
4Reform Management of the Water Projects: A new state agency should be created to regulate the operations
of the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project in order to ensure that they contribute to
salmon doubling and the recovery of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. The Department of the Interior should reform
CVP contracts to reduce water subsidies and incorporate needed reductions in pumping. Finally, an equitable
funding mechanism should be developed to restore salmon populations and the Delta ecosystem, including the
creation of a water user fee for all water diversions.
4Restore Salmon to the San Joaquin River: The historic San Joaquin River settlement agreement should be
fully implemented to restore flows and reintroduce salmon to the river.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 8 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Chapter 1
The Collapse of California’s Salmon
Populations
T
he Central Valley once sustained four runs of Chinook, each of which
evolved to return to fresh water during a different part of the year: fall,
late fall, winter, and spring. California’s once-mighty salmon runs formed
a cornerstone for Native American cultures, sustained pioneers as they settled
California’s coast and river valleys, and fostered a booming commercial fishing
industry.4 Historically, an average of 1.5 to 2 million Chinook traveled each year
through the San Francisco Bay-Delta and spawned in the Central Valley rivers that
are the lifeblood of the Delta, including the Sacramento and the San Joaquin rivers
and their tributaries.5 Another 1 to 2 million steelhead also came through the Delta
annually to spawn upstream.6 A century ago, fishermen reported catching Chinook up
to 5 feet in length.7 Seventy years ago, salmon in the San Joaquin River remained so
plentiful that farmers would use pitchforks to pluck them from the river.8 Today this
iconic symbol of the American West is disappearing.
Precipitous Declines Threaten Salmon Survival
Like salmon up and down the West Coast, the populations of salmon species in California have declined so
precipitously that most are listed as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Two
species of native California salmonids—pink salmon and bull trout—have already been eliminated from California
waters.9 The Sacramento River winter-run Chinook was the first California salmon run listed under the ESA,
in 1989.10 The listing of nine other California salmon runs quickly followed: two coastal coho species, five runs
of steelhead, and two additional Chinook runs, including the Central Valley spring-run Chinook.11 Only a few
remaining salmon runs in California are not listed under the ESA. Although not listed as endangered or threatened,
Central Valley fall- and late-fall-run Chinook are identified as species of concern under the ESA.12
In recent decades, as other runs declined, the Central Valley fall run became the workhorse of California
fisheries, with a few hundred thousand fish, on average, returning to spawn each year.13 The fall-run population
and fishery are heavily supplemented by the release of tens of millions of juvenile fish produced by hatcheries
each year.14
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 9 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Learning From the Coho Salmon Fishery Collapse
Coho salmon, one of five species of Pacific salmon found in California, once thrived in a habitat of coastal
waters and inland streams stretching from the north coast of Alaska to Monterey Bay, south of San Francisco.15
The annual commercial catch of coho ranged from 100,000 to more than 650,000 fish in the early 1960s and
1970s. From 1980 to 1990, the commercial fishery landed a yearly average of 54,300 fish and the recreational
fishery an average of 29,300 fish.16
Coho salmon were able to survive changes in the Pacific Ocean and California river environment for
millennia. But poor watershed management and habitat degradation (especially from timber harvesting, road
building, and urban runoff ) caused coho populations to dramatically decline, starting as early as the 1940s.17
In 1993 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed northern and central California coast coho
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).18 The commercial fishery was closed in 1993, and
recreational fishing for coho was restricted in 1994 and closed in 1998.19
Despite these actions, coho continued to decline, and the populations that did survive were increasingly made
up of nonnative hatchery stocks, which were detrimental to the health and genetic diversity of the coho and thus
to the survival of the species.20 In 2005, under greater danger of extinction, the NMFS listed the central coast
population as endangered.21 Coho abundance has since continued to decline. Today there are fewer than 5,000
wild coho spawning in California, in population groups of 100 or fewer—too small a number to protect against
the potential extinction of this irreplaceable wild salmon.22 There is no near-term prospect of restoring this oncerich fishery. The loss of the coho fishery is a stark reminder that without early action, sustainable fisheries can be
lost for decades—if not permanently.
Yet in contrast to the abundance of a century ago, and despite the use of hatcheries, scientists estimate that less
than 60,000 fall-run salmon will swim through the Delta in 2008 to reproduce upstream.23 The 2008 run is a tiny
fraction of historic levels, and far less than the minimum population of 120,000 fish thought to be necessary to
sustain the fishery.24
Total Production of Salmon in the Central Valley, 1967-2007
900,000
800,000
Total Run
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
67
19
69
19
71
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
19
01
20
Year
Source: California Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/index.asp
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 10 03
20
05
20
07
20
Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
The best scientific information indicates that the 2009 returns will also be catastrophically low. Only 2,000
“jacks” (male salmon that have spent only one year at sea, instead of two or more, and return from the ocean early
in an attempt to spawn)25 returned to their spawning grounds in 2007, compared with a long-term annual average
of about 40,000 fish and a previous record low of approximately 10,000.26 These jacks provide an early indicator of
the size of the following year’s run and strongly suggest that 2009 returns will also be disastrous.27
Central Valley fall-run Chinook are doing so poorly that protections under the ESA may become necessary in
the future unless strong actions are taken to reverse this trend. The Central Valley’s winter and spring runs are in
even worse shape. Fewer than 2,500 winter-run Chinook returned to spawn in 2007, a decline of approximately
85 percent from the previous year. The National Marine Fisheries Service ranks the number of winter-run juveniles
migrating to the sea in 2008 as “one of the lowest estimates on record” and predicts that “a second year of reduced
winter-run juvenile production is very likely” if current dry conditions continue.28 Annual estimates for the
number of spring-run adults returning to spawn have been steadily declining for the last seven years. While a few
spring-run populations are doing well, like those on Butte Creek, the Sacramento River’s population of spring-run
Chinook—one of the populations most affected by water project operations—is doing especially poorly.29 Fewer
than 100 fish reached the holding and spawning habitat below Shasta Dam in four of the past eight years, and in
2003 and 2005 no spring-run fish spawned in the Sacramento River.30
Commercial Fishing Boats in San Francisco
Image by Wernher Krutein/Photovault.com
Loss of Salmon Destabilizes Local Economies
The collapse of the fishery will have devastating impacts on the fishermen, river guides, and numerous other
businesses and communities that depend on salmon. This year consumers will not find locally caught wild salmon
on the menu or at the market. The California Department of Fish and Game estimates the economic loss caused by
the failure of this year’s salmon run to be $255 million and 2,263 California jobs.31
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 11 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Salmon Is My Bread and Butter
Jacky Douglas believes that she owes a debt of
gratitude to the salmon. “Salmon is my bread and
butter. I wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for that salmon.
They put my kids through college,” Douglas says. She
tears up as she recounts stories of introducing salmon
fishing to families and the joy she has seen on the
faces of children reeling in their first fish.
A veteran party-boat skipper out of San Francisco
Bay, Douglas has been fishing since 1955 and
has devoted her life to protecting salmon. Before
the salmon closure she would take boatloads of
recreational fishermen out of the Bay to the Farallon
Islands and Point Reyes. Her passion for the fish led
her to testify at congressional hearings and speak at
press conferences, putting a human face on the
Jacky Douglas, captain of the `Wacky Jacky’ charter fishing boat.
industry.
Now she mourns the closure of the industry that has meant so much to her and to the families who
introduced her to the business. While the closure pains her, it certainly wasn’t shocking news. “I knew
something was wrong a few years ago, when we were just catching big salmon. When there’s no small fish
there’s something happening,” she explains.
Douglas has had a lifetime of fishing, but she worries about younger generations and how the closure affects
other industries. “Because I’m older I can look at it differently. If I have to, I can sell my boat, but I’m not
worried about it. I’m thinking of everyone else. We could have avoided all this if we had put more effort into
saving the salmon.”
The economic impact of the recent collapse is the exclamation point on a long-term decline in salmon fishing
(see graph below). Moreover, the estimate of economic damage this year does not take into account the loss
of a geographic and cultural icon that is also a delicious, local, high-protein, and healthy food source, nor the
disappointment felt by parent wanting to take a son or daughter out fishing.32
Number of CA Commercial Salmon Fishing
Licenses and Permits
California Commercial Salmon Fishing Licenses and Permits, 1979-2007
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
8
19 2
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
8
19 8
89
19
9
19 0
91
19
92
19
93
19
9
19 4
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
0
20 0
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
0
20 6
07
20
08
0
Source: California Department of Fish and Game, www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/commercial/commercialinfo.html.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 12 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
In addition, the loss of substantial numbers of salmon threatens the health of our river ecosystems and all the
birds, fish, and wildlife that depend upon them. Chinook salmon die after they spawn. Salmon carcasses provide
essential nutrients to aquatic invertebrates, plants, and animals, and scientists have found that salmon provide up
to 25 percent of the nitrogen used by grapevines growing close to rivers. The same scientists conclude that “[l]oss
of Pacific salmon can not only negatively affect stream and riparian ecosystem function, but can also affect local
economies where agriculture and salmon streams coexist.”33
The System Has Failed
Pietro Parravano feels the burden of the recently
imposed closure of the 2008 salmon season in
California. A commercial salmon fisherman
working out of Half Moon Bay, Parravano has
been fishing since 1982. This is the first time
he has had to hang up his hooks.
Since the closure of the salmon fishery in
May, many commercial salmon fishermen in
California and Oregon have been out of work.
Parravano’s crew has adjusted by fishing for
Dungeness crab or halibut. But he wonders how
long that will last, and whether they are shifting
the burden onto another species of fish.
As Parravano describes it, the agencies
have failed the fisherman. “We are losing our
identity as a coastal community,” Parravano
Pietro Paravanno, captain of the commercial fishing boat the Anne-B.
says. “Our identity is salmon fishing, and people
are concerned with what will take its place.” Parravano feels that those responsible for managing California’s
fisheries have simply not done their job. “For the first time in history, we’ve had to close down an industry. This
speaks volumes about how awful the situation is.”
He believes that the salmon industry has been at the brink for decades, as competition for water resources
and habitat loss has increased. The agencies didn’t take into account how vital Sacramento River salmon are to
the entire industry. “This is a failure of many systems. The fact that failures in one river system can shut down
fisheries in two states is beyond belief.”
Parravano says that salmon need improved fishery habitat and that salmon protection should be on a level
playing field with agriculture in water management decisions. “If we had some level of equality, it would set the
stage to resolving this issue.”
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 13 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Chapter 2
The Role of California’s State and
Federal Water Projects in the Collapse of
the Salmon Fishery
M
any factors contributed to the historic collapse of the salmon fishery in
2008, including changes in ocean conditions that were unfavorable for
salmon during the past several years.34 Still, the operation of the State
Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) has played a critical and
central role.
Salmon Depend on Healthy Freshwater and Ocean Ecosystems
Chinook salmon are an anadromous species, which means that they are born and spend up to a year in freshwater
before migrating to the ocean, where they typically spend two to four years feeding before returning to their
natal stream to lay their eggs.35 As a result, healthy salmon populations depend on healthy freshwater and ocean
ecosystems. Adult fish need adequate flows to migrate upstream to their spawning grounds and cold, clean water
to reproduce. The fish need cold water for egg incubation. Juveniles must have sufficient food to eat while they
remain in the rivers and the Delta, and adequate flows to migrate out to the ocean. Unfortunately, the CVP and
SWP significantly, and adversely, affect all of these critical components of a healthy freshwater ecosystem.
Water Projects Dramatically Alter the Region’s Hydrology
The most visible impacts of the CVP and the SWP are the dams that have been constructed to store and divert
water. Dams in the Central Valley have entirely cut off access to more than 80 percent of historic salmon and
steelhead spawning grounds.36 For example, construction of Friant Dam in the 1940s on the San Joaquin
River created an impassable barrier, blocking salmon and steelhead from reaching historic spawning grounds.
Demonstrating their remarkable resiliency, large numbers of salmon continued to spawn downstream from the dam
until the federal government diverted so much water for irrigation that the San Joaquin River ran dry for 60 miles
below the dam in all but the wettest years.37 As a result, the San Joaquin River’s annual spring run of hundreds
of thousands of Chinook was eliminated, and the annual fall run of 50,000 to 100,000 salmon was reduced to
struggling populations on downstream rivers like the Merced and Tuolumne.38
Even when dams do not entirely obstruct access to spawning grounds, they may have a dramatic impact on
salmon passage. The sole remaining population of winter-run Chinook, as well as populations of fall-run, springrun, and steelhead, spawn upstream of Red Bluff Diversion Dam on the Sacramento River.39 Red Bluff Diversion
Dam (RBDD) has gates that can be opened and closed at will. For salmon and steelhead that spawn upstream of
the dam, the current operation of the dam and its associated diversions block or delay almost 75 percent of springrun adults, 25 percent of fall-run adults, 15 percent of winter-run adults, and 17 percent of steelhead adults from
migrating above the dam. Closure of RBDD also impedes the downstream migration of approximately 40 percent
of the juvenile salmon and steelhead trying to migrate out to the ocean. When the gates are closed and the dam is
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 14 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
in operation, predators may
eat up to half the juveniles
trying to move downstream
past the dam.40
CVP and SWP dams
and diversions also degrade
downstream habitat by
altering the amount and
timing of water flows,
thereby increasing water
temperatures and preventing
the creation of spawning
habitat. In particular, CVP
and SWP operations affect
water temperatures in ways
that can reduce survival
and reproductive success of
salmon.41 Salmon require
cold water throughout their
lifecycle, and even nonlethal
temperatures dramatically
affect their growth and
survival.42 The CVP
and SWP increase water
temperatures by altering and
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The Red Bluff Diversion Dam on the Sacramento River blocks or
reducing flows as well as by
delays migrating salmon.
storing and then releasing
water that has warmed in the top layer of reservoirs.43 Dams also affect downstream habitat by reducing or blocking
the downstream flow of gravel, which salmon need for spawning.44 Further, sudden changes in flows released from
dams can result in the dewatering of incubating salmon eggs or the stranding of juvenile salmon in shallow water
habitats, resulting in reproductive failure and the loss of thousands of juvenile fish.45
Export of Water from Bay Delta Endangers Fish and Wildlife
The export of millions of acre-feet of water from the CVP and SWP pumps in the South Delta has both direct
and indirect impacts on salmon. Pumping causes migrating salmon smolts to lose their way through the Delta and
prolongs their migration, which increases mortality.46 At times, pumping levels in the Delta are so high that they
actually reverse the flow of water in the San Joaquin River, so that water flows upstream rather than out to the
sea.47 The huge pumps also entrain an average of 90,000 juvenile fall-run salmon each year, as well as thousands
of winter- and spring-run salmon.48 In addition to direct mortality from the pumps, juvenile salmon are eaten by
predators as they migrate across the Delta in water being pulled toward the pumps. One study estimated that 63 to
98 percent of the juvenile fall-run salmon that are pulled into the Clifton Court Forebay by the SWP’s pumps are
eaten by predators.49
The CVP and SWP also reduce water quality, to the detriment of salmon, other wildlife, and farmers and
communities in the Delta. Withdrawals of freshwater from the Delta increase the salinity of water remaining in the
Delta, requiring extensive regulation of flows and salinity levels to protect drinking water, water for agriculture, and
fish and wildlife.50 The water that does remain in the Delta is too often polluted by runoff laden with pesticides,
ammonia, and other toxins from farms, roadways, sewage systems, and cities (see “Delta Water Quality and Habitat
Impacts on Salmon” sidebar on page 16).
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 15 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Delta Water Quality and Habitat Impacts on Salmon
Water pollution represents a significant threat to the health of the Delta and its fisheries. The simultaneous
decline of numerous fish species throughout the Delta ecosystem in recent years suggests that water quality
problems in this area may contribute to salmonid population declines.51 Recent studies have shown that
ammonia from urban wastewater treatment plants may cause significant harm to the food chain in the Delta.52
Likewise, agricultural runoff from farms carries pesticides and herbicides that can be fatal to salmon and other
species and may have harmful ecosystem effects.53 Improving water quality in the Delta must be a priority if
we are to recover salmon and other species. Doing so would provide the double benefit of improving drinking
water quality for all who rely on the Delta.
Another threat to salmon in the Bay-Delta ecosystem has been the radical transformation of what was once a
vast expanse of marshland and floodplain into agricultural land protected by levees, cutting off the river from its
natural floodplains. Research shows that juvenile Chinook salmon grow faster and larger when they are able to
forage in the floodplains of the Yolo Bypass than when they migrate through other Delta channels.54 Creating a
flood management system that allows some floodplains to flood, rather than relying solely on levees to confine
rivers, would provide significant environmental benefits to fish, reduce the dangers of flooding to human
life and structures, and increase groundwater recharge.55 Creating more floodplains and allowing them to be
inundated more frequently is a win-win solution.
Only a very small percentage of salmon smolts born each year reach the ocean, and the CVP and SWP
operations are responsible for significant juvenile salmon mortality. 56 In 2008 a federal judge concluded that the
direct and indirect effects of the operation of state and federal water projects (including mortality in the pumps,
temperature impacts, and migration delays from dams and flows) kill approximately 42 percent of juvenile winterrun Chinook, 37 percent of juvenile spring-run Chinook, and 39 percent of juvenile steelhead.57 Despite these
dramatic figures, the operators of the CVP and SWP proposed to increase the amount of water exported through
the Delta. The court concluded that these expanded operations would dramatically increase the number of fish
killed, totaling as much as 62 percent of juvenile winter-run Chinook, 57 percent of juvenile spring-run Chinook,
and more than 66 percent of juvenile steelhead.58
SWP and CVP operations are not the only cause of the decline of salmon, nor are they the only cause of the
crisis in the Delta. It is clear, however, that the management of the Delta—and the operations of the Central Valley
Five-Year Averages of Combined CVP and SWP Delta Exports
6.0
(Millions of Acre-Feet)
Combined CVP & SWP Exports
7.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1968-72
1973-77
1978-82
1983-87
1988-92
1993-97
1998-02
Year
Source: California Department of Water Resources, Dayflow Database, www.iep.ca.gov/dayflow/output/index.html
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 16 2003-07
Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Project and State Water Project in particular—play a critical role in the fate of Central Valley salmon populations.
Following a low point for salmon populations in 1992, passage of a federal law requiring that more water be made
available for salmon and other species, helped by the end of a five-year drought, resulted in some progress toward
recovery. Unfortunately, since then water diversions have reached historic high levels and the salmon populations
are now in crisis. The decline in California’s native salmon populations corresponds strongly with the increase in
CVP and SWP water project diversions and the Delta pumps that drain fresh water out of the Delta, reversing
tributary flows and harming salmon traveling through the estuary. Blaming ocean conditions for declining salmon
populations ignores the fact that many fish species that spend their entire lives in the Delta have experienced
catastrophic population declines over the past five years, such as the delta smelt.59
Notably, although unfavorable ocean conditions and some other factors implicated in the decline of the fall run
are not directly within our control, the operation of these two water projects is. How we operate the CVP and SWP
dramatically affects salmon populations and can make the difference between the collapse and the recovery of the
salmon fishery. In fact, when ocean conditions are unfavorable, it is even more critical that we conserve the existing
population by managing the CVP and SWP to maximize protection of salmon. As Peter Moyle, one of the nation’s
preeminent fish biologists, recently said:
Overall, blaming “ocean conditions” for salmon declines is a lot like blaming Hurricane
Katrina for flooding New Orleans, while ignoring the many human errors that made the
disaster inevitable, such as poor construction of levees or destruction of protective salt marshes.
. . . The listings of the winter and spring runs of Central Valley Chinook as endangered
species were warnings of likely declines on an even larger scale. . . . Continuing on our present
course will result in the permanent loss of a valuable and iconic fishery unless we start taking
corrective action soon.60
A recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California agreed that the long-term survival of the salmon
fishery is in jeopardy unless we change the way we manage water exports in the Delta. The study concluded that
there is a 70 to 90 percent chance that the fall-run salmon fishery would not be viable in 2050, assuming that
the existing system is used to convey water and that the amount of water diverted is equal to the average annual
diversions from 1981 to 2000.61
If water exports increase above
those levels or if other changes
to the system that harm
salmon occur, the likelihood
of sustaining the fishery into
the future would decrease even
further. We can, and must, do a
better job of managing the CVP
and SWP if we are to protect and
restore salmon populations.
The collapse of the salmon fishery diminishes cherished recreational fishing opportunities.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 17 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Tapping the “Virtual River” to Meet California’s Water Supply Needs
In order to restore salmon and other wildlife, we need to keep enough water flowing in California’s rivers.
Moving toward science-based and environmentally sustainable flows in our rivers and the Bay-Delta will require
reductions in the amount of water diverted from the ecosystem and the development of alternative water
supplies that can reduce our dependence on the Bay-Delta.
Fortunately, California’s future water needs can be met by expanding the water made available from fishfriendly sources like water conservation and efficiency, water recycling, groundwater cleanup and conjunctive
use programs, and improved stormwater management. More than 7 million acre-feet of water is available
from this “virtual river” each year, which is more water than has ever been diverted from the Delta, the state’s
single largest source of water today (see graph).62 In addition to protecting salmon and other wildlife, these
water sources: (1) are more reliable and less vulnerable to global climate change; (2) generally require less
energy than pumping from the Delta, saving energy and reducing air pollution and carbon emissions; and (3)
provide additional benefits, including improved water quality at southern California’s beaches through urban
stormwater management (also called Low Impact Development, or LID).
This “virtual river” can help supply California’s water needs for decades to come while at the same time
protecting the environment and California’s salmon fishing heritage. Urban water users agree that these tools
are the key to adequate supplies in the future. For example, the City of Los Angeles recently announced plans
to meet its growth in water demand over the next 20 years by emphasizing these tools—and at a fraction of
the cost of traditional water supply projects. Building on the governor’s call to improve water conservation by
reducing per capita water use by 20 percent by 2020, local, state, and federal governments, water districts, and
the rest of us must work together to develop the policies, projects, and leadership to tap into this virtual river
for our homes, businesses, and farms.
Water Supply From the Virtual River Compared With Historic
Maximum Diversions From the Delta
Million Acre-Feet Per Year
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Total of the High Estimates for Conservation,
Groundwater, LID, and Wastewater Recycling
Maximum Delta Diversions (2005)
Source: California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 160-05: California Water Plan Update 2005; Pacific
Institute, California Water 2030: An Efficient Future, 33; California Department of Water Resources, “Dayflow
Database,” http://www.iep.ca.gov/dayflow/output/index.html.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 18 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Chapter 3
Existing Legal Protections for Salmon
N
umerous state and federal environmental laws apply to the operation of the
CVP and SWP, and they provide strong mandates to protect and restore
salmon and the health of the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Unfortunately,
state and federal agencies have often disregarded these legal requirements in their
management of the water projects, leading to disastrous results for salmon, other fish
and wildlife, and the people who depend on a healthy Delta for their livelihoods.
Discussed below are some of the most important legal protections for fish and wildlife
that are relevant to the operation of the CVP and SWP. Acting to realize the promise
of these protections has often fallen to NRDC and other organizations dedicated to
protecting and preserving our natural resources.
Federal Endangered Species Act
The goal of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to prevent the extinction of fish and wildlife threatened
by human activities and to restore their populations to healthy levels. Species listed as endangered or threatened
under the ESA are protected by two major requirements. First, the ESA requires the federal government to ensure
that its actions do not jeopardize the continued existence or recovery of species listed as endangered or threatened.
Second, the law prohibits any person (and any state) from killing or harming (“taking”) endangered or threatened
species without a permit; such a permit must include mitigation measures to protect the species’ population.63
Numerous fish and wildlife species living in the Delta, including several salmon runs, have been listed under the
ESA, an indication that the Bay-Delta ecosystem is in trouble (see “Threatened and Endangered Fish Special of the
Bay-Delta” on page 20). Actions taken under the ESA to protect listed species can also benefit other Species, such
as fall-run Chinook salmon.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 19 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Threatened and Endangered Fish Species of the Bay-Delta64
Species
Federal ESA Status
State ESA Status
Winter-run Chinook
Endangered
Endangered
Spring-run Chinook
Threatened
Threatened
Fall- and late-fall-run Chinook
Species of concern
Not listed
Central Valley Steelhead
Threatened
Not listed
Delta smelt
Threatened
Threatened
Longfin smelt
Candidate for listing
Candidate for listing
Sacramento splittail
Not listed
Species of special concern
Southern green sturgeon
Threatened
Not listed
In recent years, working with other conservation and fishing groups, NRDC has won several landmark lawsuits
holding that operation of the CVP and SWP violates the ESA, including a ruling in 2007 that required reduced
water exports to protect the delta smelt.65 As a result of that litigation and ongoing litigation in 2008 to protect
salmon and steelhead in the Delta, the federal government currently is revising its long-term plan for operating the
projects.66
California Endangered Species Act
Like the federal ESA, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) is designed to prevent the extinction of fish
and wildlife.67 Several Delta species are protected under the CESA, including spring- and winter-run Chinook
salmon and the delta smelt.68 Like the federal ESA, the CESA prohibits killing or harming endangered species
unless the state approves a conservation plan to provide for the continued recovery of the species.69 In 2007, in
response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of sport fishing groups, a state court judge ruled that the State Water
Project had not complied with this law and ordered the state to develop a plan to protect listed fish from ongoing
harm caused by the SWP. 70
Bay Delta Conservation Plan
The CVP, SWP, and the contractors who receive water from these projects have begun a process, pursuant to the
ESA, CESA, and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, to develop a habitat conservation plan
referred to as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). The BDCP would absolve them of legal liability under
both endangered species laws for up to 50 years. Over the next two years, the state and federal government will
determine what conservation measures will be required in this plan. If such a plan is adopted, the state and federal
government would generally be unable to require additional restrictions on pumping, exports, or other CVP and
SWP operations to restore salmon populations and other listed species—even if the salmon’s plight becomes worse
and fall-run salmon become listed under the ESA.
The BDCP participants have revived consideration of a controversial “peripheral canal” proposal, defeated by
California voters in 1982, to take water from the Sacramento River around the Delta. Participants hope such a
canal would reduce the number of delta smelt and other species killed by the pumps. However, there are concerns
that such a massive new diversion canal could worsen the impacts of the state’s water projects on salmon in the
Sacramento River. To date, there has not been sufficient analysis conducted to determine the extent of those
potential impacts. Nor has there been sufficient analysis of the potential for reduced levels of diversions to benefit
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 20 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
salmon, smelt, and the entire Bay-Delta ecosystem. NRDC and other organizations are working to ensure that the
BDCP will bring about the restoration of the salmon fishery and the recovery of salmon and other species.
Central Valley Project Improvement Act
The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) was passed by Congress in 1992 in order to operate the
CVP in a manner that provides greater protection to fish and wildlife.71 There are three main provisions under the
Act. First, the CVP was to provide 800,000 acre-feet of water per year for fish and wildlife purposes.72 Second, the
Act established a goal of doubling the number of salmon and other anadromous species in the Delta by 2002.73
And third, the Act imposed fees on water users and established a restoration fund to use those monies for the
protection of fish and wildlife.74
Unfortunately, in recent years the amount of water dedicated to salmon recovery has been significantly less than
the original promise of the CVPIA. That water has instead been used to meet obligations that the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation is already legally required to meet, rather than being used for salmon recovery.75 Today, more than
five years after the deadline for doubling salmon populations mandated by the Act, fall-run Chinook—as well as
populations of delta smelt and other species—have collapsed. Despite these ecological disasters, many who profit
by receiving cheap, subsidized water under the existing system have filed numerous lawsuits against the federal
government in recent years, claiming that the water projects are dedicating too much water to environmental
purposes and that the taxpayers owe them millions of dollars in compensation.76 NRDC is opposing those efforts
in court.
Central Valley Winter-Run Chinook Salmon: Historic and Current
Population Estimates Compared With Species Recovery Goal
120000
Total Run
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Pre-CVPIA
Population Average
(1967 to 1991)
CVPIA Doubling
Goal
2007 Population
Source: California Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fish Restoration Program,
www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/index.asp
California Resources Agency Policy of Doubling Anadromous Fish Populations
In 1978 the California Resources Agency adopted a state policy to double salmon populations.77 This was followed
by enactment of a state law in 1988, the Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Anadromous Fisheries Program Act,
mandating state policies to increase salmon populations and protecting existing salmon habitat, as well as requiring
the adoption of a program to double the naturally spawning populations of salmon and steelhead.78 These
state policies inspired the anadromous fish doubling goal of the CVPIA, and the State Water Resources Board
subsequently incorporated this doubling goal in its water quality control plan for the Bay-Delta in 1995. The plan
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 21 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
included the following objective: “Water quality conditions shall be maintained, together with other measures
in the watershed, sufficient to achieve a doubling of natural production of Chinook salmon from the average
production of 1967 to 1991, consistent with the provisions of state and federal law.”79 Despite these goals, overall
salmon populations have declined since 1992.
Section 5937 of the California Fish and Game Code
Section 5937 of the California Fish and Game Code is a long-standing provision of state law that requires the
operator of any dam to provide sufficient water below the dam to protect fish downstream. A version of this law
has been on the books since the mid-1800s, yet it has rarely been enforced.80 In 2004, after 16 years of litigation,
NRDC won its claim that the Bureau of Reclamation’s operation of Friant Dam on the San Joaquin River, which
frequently causes the river to run dry, violates section 5937.81 Today NRDC, the Friant Water Users Authority,
state agencies, and the federal government are working together to implement the historic settlement of this
litigation, which will restore salmon and natural water flows to the river in the coming years.
Federal Clean Water Act and California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Under the federal Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Act (California’s complementary state law), the CVP
and SWP must be operated in a manner that protects water quality in the Delta for drinking water, agricultural
uses, and fish and wildlife needs. Although much of the focus of agencies implementing these laws has been on
salinity regulations, which are dramatically affected by the withdrawal and export of freshwater from the Delta,
greater attention must be paid to water temperature regulation, as well as to pesticide pollution and other runoff
from farms, cities, and industrial users. Protecting water quality provides benefits to salmon and all those who use
water from the Delta.
Public Trust and Reasonable Use Doctrines
These two principles of California law make clear that California’s water and its aquatic resources must be used
for the benefit of the public as a whole and cannot be squandered. The reasonable use doctrine was adopted
as part of the State Constitution in 1928.82 It provides, in part, that water rights are “limited to such water as
shall be reasonably required for the beneficial use to be served, and such right does not and shall not extend to
the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of water.”
Similarly, the public trust doctrine requires that the public trust resources of the state (including water, fish, and the
environment) be protected for the benefit of the public; such protections may include limiting the exercise of
water rights.83
Delta Vision
In 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger approved state legislation and issued an executive order creating a blue ribbon
task force to develop a sustainable vision for management of the Delta.84 In November 2007 the task force
issued its final Delta Vision report, which included 12 recommendations to achieve the primary, coequal goals of
ecosystem restoration and reliable water supplies.85 The task force is now developing a strategic plan to implement
those recommendations, and its final report is due in late 2008. Many of the recommendations of the strategic plan
will likely require new legislation to be implemented.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 22 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Chapter 4
Emerging Threats to Salmon From
Water Projects
T
he trouble in the Bay-Delta ecosystem has been decades in the making, and
the warning signs many: the listing of many Bay-Delta species as threatened
and endangered, the failure to achieve the state and federally mandated
salmon doubling requirement, the need for intervention by state and federal courts to
uphold statutory requirements, and now the alarming crash of the salmon fishery in
California. Despite these warning signs, all indicators point toward state and federal
water project operators’ continuing to provide unsustainable quantities of water, much
of which is highly subsidized by taxpayers to grow crops in the Central Valley. All
too often these deliveries come at the expense of the families and communities who
depend on salmon fishing for their livelihood.
NRDC has significant concerns with several ongoing actions and new proposals that could significantly worsen
conditions for salmon in the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem. The following proposals (some in the analysis
stage and others already approved) have—or could—increase the amount of water withdrawn from salmon habitat,
reduce water dedicated for salmon recovery, and otherwise degrade salmon habitat:
Possible New Peripheral Canal to Expand Water Exports
In May 2008, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) released its initial analysis of the potential
impacts of a peripheral canal—a new aqueduct to export water from the Sacramento River before it reaches the
Delta.86 All of the scenarios analyzed by DWR include massive increases in the amount of water to be diverted
upstream of the Delta. The analysis indicates that diversions could reach 8.5 million acre-feet. This is 2 million
acre-feet more than the CVP and SWP have ever pumped from the Delta and is enough water to supply 12 cities
the size of Los Angeles (although most of this water goes to agricultural uses). The analysis acknowledges that such
deliveries would reduce storage in upstream reservoirs, but DWR’s analysis pointedly ignores the potential impacts
on salmon of diverting more freshwater out of the Sacramento River and the Delta.
New Water Rights Applications
There are numerous applications for new water rights pending before the State Water Resources Control Board.
These applications would appropriate a total of approximately 4.8 million additional acre-feet of water per year
from the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and other rivers that feed the Delta.87 This amount, which does not include the
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 23 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
increased quantities that many users claim under their existing water rights, dwarfs the amount of water currently
exported to Southern California each year. These huge new demands threaten to overwhelm the already overtaxed
Delta.
New CVP Water Contracts
Between 2001 and 2006, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation signed more than 170 long-term contracts with water
districts around the state promising to increase significantly water deliveries from the Central Valley Project for the
next 25 to 40 years.88 The Bureau is currently contemplating signing additional long-term contracts with at least
33 more water districts.89 The Bureau aims to increase total deliveries under all the contracts to more than
5 million acre-feet of water per year over the life of the contracts.90 This is 2.6 million acre-feet more than the
Bureau has delivered on average over the last 20 years.91 The Bureau informed Congress that it intends to deliver
these full contract quantities to water users by the end of the contract terms. Approximately 90 percent of CVP
water is used for agricultural irrigation at prices that average 2 percent of what an average city pays for water.92
Often, agricultural deliveries are used to grow water-intensive, low-value crops like cotton, rice, pasture, and alfalfa
hay that contribute little to the state’s agricultural economy.93
Reductions in the Amount of Water Dedicated to Salmon Restoration
One of the principal requirements of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act was to dedicate more water to
the restoration of fish and wildlife. In the words of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:
Section 3406(b)(2) [of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act] provides that the
“primary purpose” to which the 800,000 acre-feet should be dedicated is the implementation
of “fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration purposes authorized by this title ...” … If Interior
were required to deduct some or all the water it uses for water quality and Endangered
Species Act purposes from the (b)(2) dedication, the water needed for implementation of the
Improvement Act’s restoration mandate could be relegated to a secondary role, or perhaps no
role at all. Such a scenario would directly conflict with the Interior’s mandate to give effect to
the hierarchy of purposes established in Section 3406(b)(2).94
Despite this explicit mandate, the Bureau of Reclamation continues to use so-called “b(2)” water first to meet
existing water quality and other legal requirements, and, only if there is water left over, to use it as Congress
directed to recover salmon populations. This frequently leaves little water for salmon recovery purposes, even in
the face of dramatic recent salmon declines. In May 2008, “[a]ccording to Reclamation, the amount of [b(2)]
available for water year 2008 has already been expended in the Delta for court-ordered pumping reductions needed
to protect Delta smelt.”95 Thus, even before the start of summer, when b(2) water is most needed to maintain
water temperatures, the Department of the Interior has chosen to allocate all of this water to purposes other than
restoring salmon.
Reductions in Available Sacramento River Spawning Habitat
Despite the collapse of the salmon fishery and the problems facing the fall-, winter-, and spring-run populations,
the Bureau of Reclamation proposed in 2008 to reduce the amount of suitable spawning habitat below Shasta Dam
to less than 15 miles—half the amount of habitat that has been provided in the last 12 years.96 This reduction
would squeeze the salmon that spawn below the dam, including the last remaining population of winter-run, into
a smaller and smaller space, lessening their chances of successfully reproducing and increasing their vulnerability to
a catastrophic event. The Bureau’s own modeling shows that this reduction could kill up to 45 percent of winterrun eggs and fry (young) and 80 percent of the Sacramento River spring-run population’s eggs and fry.97 Similar
proposals for the operations of Folsom, Oroville, Whiskeytown, New Melones, and Red Bluff Diversion Dams are
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 24 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
unlikely to provide sufficient flows or cold water for salmon and steelhead to survive in the long term or to recover
from their current depleted condition.98
Reduced Protections for Salmon in New Plan for SWP and CVP Operations
As a result of litigation by NRDC and its partners, the state and federal governments prepared a new operations
criteria and plan (OCAP) for the State Water Project and Central Valley Project. The current proposal eliminates
several long-standing provisions intended to protect salmon and steelhead. Although the plan will almost certainly
be changed as it undergoes review for compliance with the ESA, the current proposal calls for (1) eliminating
the requirement to maintain 1.9 million acre-feet of carryover storage (water retained in reservoirs at the end of
the year, so that cold water can be released into the rivers the following year) in Lake Shasta, a change that would
increase mortality for all runs, particularly in dry years when the plan estimates that 60 percent of the spring-run
salmon in the Sacramento River would be killed; (2) continuing to operate Red Bluff Diversion Dam in the “gates
in” position for four months of the year, which causes significant mortality to fall-run salmon as well as other
salmon and steelhead; and (3) reducing minimum flows on Clear Creek to 30 cubic feet per second, which would
“likely be too low for spring-run to migrate upstream.”99
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 25 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Chapter 5
Conclusion and Recommendations
A
continuation of the current strategies for water management in the San
Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem could doom California’s salmon fishery. Just
as the state lost the coho salmon fishery in the 1990s, we could lose our
Chinook salmon fishery in the next few years. Protecting and restoring the salmon
population to a level capable of supporting a healthy, sustainable commercial and
recreational fishing industry will require wise leadership and significant changes in
California’s water policies. We believe that strong leadership today can restore this
fishery and the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem, and that it can ensure a healthy
future for the many communities and people who depend on these resources.
What You Can Do to Help Restore Salmon
We can all pitch in to help restore the salmon. In addition to writing to our elected officials to support the
recommendations in this report, one of the most important things we can do is to conserve water. You can
reduce our consumption by fixing leaky plumbing; installing low flow shower heads, faucets, and toilets; and
using drought-tolerant landscaping, to name a few measures. More water saving tips are available online at
www.nrdc.org/cities/living/gover.asp#water. By working together to conserve water, we can reduce the need to
divert water from the Bay-Delta and help protect salmon.
While a number of actions are required to protect salmon populations over the long term, changing the way
we manage water in the Bay-Delta ecosystem is probably the single most important step we can take to restore
our salmon resources and ensure the continued health of California’s salmon fisheries. Fortunately, we already
know a great deal about the impacts of water projects on salmon habitat, and solutions are readily available. We
recommend the following comprehensive actions and policy reforms:
4Governor Schwarzenegger should issue an executive order making the protection and restoration of
California’s commercial and recreational salmon fishery a top priority. This order should reiterate the existing
state and federal policies calling for the doubling of salmon populations and should call for an enforceable plan
for meeting the doubling requirement in the near term.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 26 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
4The Delta Vision Task Force should incorporate the restoration of a sustainable salmon fishery into its
ecosystem restoration goals for the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary. The specific recommendations below
should be incorporated into the Delta Vision strategic plan currently under development.
4The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan under development should include the goal of doubling the salmon
population as one of its ecosystem restoration goals. In order to ensure the restoration and preservation of a
sustainable salmon fishery, the draft plan should be peer reviewed by the CALFED Independent Science Panel,
and the plan should also incorporate the specific recommendations below. The BDCP should avoid providing
guarantees under the ESA, such as specific amounts of water deliveries or certain project operations, which
interfere with efforts to restore healthy and commercially viable salmon populations. The BDCP plan must be
designed to achieve restoration of endangered species and recovery of salmon populations, not just minimum
compliance with the state and federal endangered species laws.
4Salmon Doubling Recommendation
• The Central Valley Project Improvement Act Independent Review Panel should analyze the effect of the
emerging threats to salmon identified in this report on the state and federal salmon doubling programs. Its
final report should consider the potential of the water management, habitat restoration, and dam removal
recommendations in this report to contribute to achieving the doubling goal.
• The Department of Fish and Game should prepare an update to the state’s salmon doubling program,
building upon the recommendations of the CVPIA Independent Review Panel and this report.
• The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) should ensure that its actions under the Strategic
Workplan for Activities in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary significantly
contribute to the state’s salmon doubling goal and the preservation of the state’s commercial and recreational
salmon fishery.
4Water Management Recommendations
• Long-term average diversions from the San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem must be reduced. The State
Board and/or a new state “Delta Water Master” agency should adopt fully protective flow standards for the
estuary that meet the needs of the Delta ecosystem and salmonids. Such a standard must cap and reduce
total diversions, based on the best available science. It is important to note that reducing average diversions
does not necessarily require reducing water diversions in all water year types.
• The State Board should declare the Bay-Delta system a fully appropriated system (meaning that there is
no more water that can legally be diverted) and cap water rights. Any new water rights issued by the State
Board should be accompanied by corresponding reductions elsewhere in the system. The State Board should
aggressively investigate and enforce compliance with existing water rights.
• The Department of the Interior should implement changes to the current management of the 800,000 acrefeet of water dedicated to salmon restoration by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Consistent
with the primary purpose of Section 3406(b)(2) to achieve anadromous fish doubling, the bulk of this water
should be dedicated to salmon protection, rather than compliance with ESA or water quality requirements.
• As the Bureau of Reclamation negotiates new Central Valley Project water contracts both south and north
of the Delta, it should reform the contracts to eliminate subsidies and reduce water quantities to levels that
enable salmon restoration.
• State and federal agencies, the BDCP, and Delta Vision should carefully analyze potential impacts to salmon
before they make any long-term decisions regarding changes to the water conveyance system in the Delta.
• Project operators should maintain adequate “cold water pools” in Central Valley reservoirs located on
rivers that support spawning salmon and should provide fully protective temperature conditions below
terminal reservoirs. Fully protective carryover storage and temperature standards should be required by the
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 27 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
State Board, DFG, and NMFS. On the Sacramento River, these protective measures should be at least as
protective as those included in the 1993 winter-run biological opinion.
• The Secretary of the Interior, in partnership with the state, should fully implement the San Joaquin River
Settlement agreement, restoring flows to the San Joaquin River in 2009 and reintroducing salmon no later
than 2012.
• California water agencies should dramatically increase investment in fish-friendly water supply alternatives
to meet California’s future water needs in a manner that is compatible with the reduction of Delta
diversions, including urban conservation, water recycling, groundwater management, and urban stormwater
management.
• The state legislature should devote water supply funding in any future water bonds to those alternatives that
most cost-effectively reduce reliance on the Delta and for which local partners are most willing to provide
cost-sharing investments.
• DWR and the Bureau of Reclamation should increase their capacity to support and encourage conservation,
improved groundwater and stormwater management, water recycling, and integrated planning efforts.
4Agency Reform Recommendations
• The legislature should empower a new state Delta Water Master to ensure balanced project management and
regulate the operations of the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project. The Delta Water
Master should ensure that future adaptive management efforts are designed primarily to improve salmon
and ecosystem protection, not simply to increase water diversions.
4Restoration Funding Recommendations
• The legislature, the State Board, or a new Delta Water Master should create a water user fee for all water
diverters that will support an effective restoration program to address cumulative impacts on salmon. This
fee could be modeled on the CVPIA restoration fund, which requires some water users to fund system-wide
restoration efforts, and would complement existing funding provided through the California commercial
fishing salmon stamp program and the federal excise tax on recreational fishing equipment.
• Any future water and parks bonds should make salmon restoration a priority for funding.
4Dam Removal and Operations Recommendations
• Red Bluff Diversion Dam on the Sacramento River should be operated in a permanent “gates up” position,
and fish-friendly pumps should be installed that eliminate the need for a diversion dam.
• The antiquated hydroelectric dams on Battle Creek should be removed, restoring more than 40 miles of
Chinook salmon habitat.
• Daguerre Point Dam on the Yuba River should be removed, restoring access to 12 miles of upstream habitat.
• Evaluations should be completed regarding the potential removal of Englebright Dam on the Yuba River.
4Wetland and Riparian Habitat Restoration Recommendations
• The Delta Vision Task Force’s strategic plan should call for implementation of a delta-wide habitat
restoration program supported by the best available science, drawing on the detailed habitat restoration
recommendations submitted by NRDC and several other environmental groups.
• A flood bypass for the South Delta, such as that proposed on the San Joaquin River by several
environmental groups, River Islands LLC, and the state, should be implemented to provide increased flood
protection and floodplain habitat, for fish and wildlife.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 28 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
• The need for functioning floodplain habitat should be incorporated into the Central Valley Flood
Protection Plan and the Department of Water Resources FloodSAFE program, to provide flood protection,
habitat and groundwater recharge.
4Water Quality Recommendations
• The State Board should ensure that discharges from agricultural users, waste treatment plants, urban runoff,
and other sources are not harming salmon and other wildlife. Harmful discharges must be reduced or
eliminated.
• The State should develop a statewide program to encourage agricultural water users to transition to drip
and other highly efficient water irrigation systems that can reduce water use and agricultural runoff while
increasing yields.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 29 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Endnotes
1 Peter B. Moyle, Inland Fishes of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press,
2002), 242.
2
W. F. “Zeke” Grader Jr. and Glen Spain, “Why the Klamath Basin Matters,” Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen’s Associations, www.pcffa.org/fn-aug01.htm.
3
“Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Listing Determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast Salmonids;
Proposed Rule,” 69 Fed. Reg. 33,101, 33,102 (June 14, 2004).
4
California Advisory Council on Salmon and Steelhead Trout, “Restoring the Balance,” 1988 Annual Report.
5
Ronald M. Yoshiyama, Frank W. Fisher, and Peter B. Moyle, “Historical Abundance and Decline of Chinook
Salmon in the Central Valley Region of California,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:3 (August
1998); testimony of Peter B. Moyle, Center for Watershed Sciences and Department of Wildlife, Fish, and
Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, before the California Joint Committee on Fisheries and
Aquaculture, April 17, 2008.
6
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Regional Office, “California Central Valley Steelhead DPS,” http://
swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery/Steelhead_CCVS.htm.
7
Ronald M. Yoshiyama, Frank W. Fisher, and Peter B. Moyle, “Historical Abundance and Decline of Chinook
Salmon in the Central Valley Region of California,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:3 (August
1998): 487-521.
8
Tales of the San Joaquin River, Dir. Christopher Beaver (CBFilms, funded by CA Resources Agency for CALFED
Bay-Delta Program, 2003).
9
Peter B. Moyle, Inland Fishes of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press,
2002), 243.
10 “Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat; Winter-Run Chinook Salmon,” 54 Fed. Reg. 32085
(August 4, 1989); “Designated Critical Habitat; Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon,” 57 Fed. Reg.
36626 (August 14, 1992); National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Field Office, “Chinook Salmon,” www.
nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Chinook/Index.cfm.
11 National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, “Salmon Populations,” www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESASalmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/; California Dept. of Fish and Game, “State and Federally Listed Endangered
and Threatened Animals of California,” www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf.
12 National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, “Chinook Salmon,” www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESASalmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Chinook/Index.cfm.
13 California Department of Fish and Game, Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, Grandtab Spreadsheet, online at
www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/afrp/documents/2008_DRAFT-3-1-08_GrandTab.xls.
14 California Department of Fish and Game, “Salmon Fishery Changes,” www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/salmon/#25.
15 Peter B. Moyle, Inland Fishes of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press,
2002), 245-251.
16 California Department of Fish and Game, “Report to the Fish and Game Commission: A Status Review of Coho
Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in California south of San Francisco Bay,” 1995, at 36-37.
17 Ibid. at 26-27; Peter B. Moyle, Inland Fishes of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of
California Press, 2002), 245-251.
18 National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, “Coho Salmon,” www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-SalmonListings/Salmon-Populations/Coho/Index.cfm.
19 California Department of Fish and Game, “Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon, Report to the
California Fish and Game Commission,” (2004), 3.22.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 30 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
20 Peter B. Moyle, Inland Fishes of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press,
2002), 245-251.
21 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, “Updated Status of Federally Listed ESUs of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead.” NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-66, June 2005.
22 Peter B. Moyle, Inland Fishes of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press,
2002), 245-251.
23 Pacific Fishery Management Council, news release, “Record Low Salmon Fisheries Adopted,” April 10, 2008,
www.pcouncil.org/newsreleases/PFMC_FINAL_PressRel.pdf; “Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western
Pacific; West Coast Salmon Fisheries,” 2008 Management Measures and a Temporary Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 23971,
23973 (May 1, 2008).
24 Ibid.
25 Peter B Moyle, Inland Fishes of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press,
2002), 242.
26 Pacific Fishery Management Council, “Sacramento River Natural and Hatchery Fall Chinook Escapement”, www.
pcouncil.org/newsreleases/Sacto_adult_and_jack_escapement_thru%202007.pdf; “Salmon Population Declines in
California, West Coast,” Science Daily, February 4, 2008, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080129210349.
htm.
27 Ibid.
28 Declaration of Bruce F. Oppenheim at 6, P.C.F.F.A. v. Gutierrez, Case No. 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GSA (E.D. Cal.,
May 15, 2008).
29 Peter Fimrite, “Salmon Resurgence in Butte County,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 26, 2008, at A-1.
30 Declaration of Christina Swanson, Ph.D., at 15-16, P.C.F.F.A. v. Gutierrez, Case No. 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GSA
(E.D. Cal., May 27, 2008).
31 Office of the Governor of California, “Gov. Schwarzenegger Takes Action to Address Impacts of Vote to Close
Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries,” press release, February 11, 2008, www.gov.ca.gov/index.php?/
press-release/9293/.
32 American Heart Association, “Fish and Omega-3 Fatty Acids,” www.americanheart.org/presenter.
jhtml?identifier=4632.
33 Joseph E. Merz1 and Peter B. Moyle, “Salmon, Wildlife, and Wine: Marine-Derived Nutrients in HumanDominated Ecosystems of Central California,” Ecological Applications 16:3 (June 2006).
34 Pacific Fishery Management Council, March 2008 Salmon Briefing Book, Agenda Item D.1.b, www.pcouncil.org/
bb/2008/0308/D1b_CDFG.pdf, www.pcouncil.org/bb/2008/0308/D1b_SUP_NMFS.pdf; “Unfavorable Ocean
Conditions Likely Cause of Low Salmon Returns Along West Coast in 2007,” NOAA News, March 3, 2008, www.
noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080303_salmon.html.
35 Peter B. Moyle, Inland Fishes of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press,
2002), 254-55.
36 California Department of Fish and Game and National Marine Fisheries Service, Joint Hatchery Review
Committee, “Final Report on Anadromous Salmonid Fish Hatcheries in California,” 2001, at 1,https://nrmsecure.
dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=3346; Ronald M. Yoshiyama, et al., “Historical and Present Distribution
of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California,” Fish Bulletin 179(1): 71, 156 (2001);
Christopher Myrick and Joseph Cech Jr., “Temperature Effects on Chinook Salmon and Steelhead: A Review
Focusing on California’s Central Valley Populations,” Bay-Delta Modeling Forum, Technical Publication 01-1 (Oct.
2001), at 10, http://cwemf.org/Pubs/TempReview.pdf; declaration of Bruce F. Oppenheim at 24:12-13, P.C.F.F.A.
v. Gutierrez, Case No. 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GSA (E.D. Cal., May 15, 2008).
37 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Patterson, 333 F.Supp.2d 906, 909-10 (E.D.Cal. 2004).
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 31 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
38 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Patterson, 333 F.Supp.2d at 909-10.
39 National Marine Fisheries Service, “2007 Recovery Outline for the Evolutionarily Significant Units of Winter-run
and Spring-run Chinook Salmon (Oncohynchus tschawytcha), and the Distinct Population Segment of California
Central Valley Steelhead (O. mykiss),” 9-11; P. D. Gaines and C.D. Martin, “Abundance and Seasonal, Spatial and
Diel Distribution Patterns of Juvenile Salmonids Passing the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, Sacramento River,” U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Research Pumping Plant Report Series, Volume 14, 2001, 14, www.fws.gov/
redbluff/PDF/Abundance%20Report%20(Final).pdf.
40 P. D. Gaines and C. D. Martin, “Abundance and Seasonal, Spatial and Diel Distribution Patterns of Juvenile
Salmonids Passing the Red Bluff Diversion Dam, Sacramento River,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff
Research Pumping Plant Report Series, Volume 14, 2001; Bureau of Reclamation and Tehama-Colusa Canal
Authority, “Fish Passage Improvement Project at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam Draft EIS/EIR,” App. B.
41 Christopher Myrick and Joseph Cech Jr., Temperature Effects on Chinook Salmon and Steelhead: a Review
Focusing on California’s Central Valley Populations, Bay-Delta Modeling Forum, Technical Publication 01-1 (Oct.
2001), at iii.
42 Ibid. at iii-v.
43 Ibid. at 10.
44 The Nature Conservancy, “Sacramento River Ecological Flows Study, Draft Final Report, 10-12, 17, www.delta.
dfg.ca.gov/erp/docs/sacriverecoflows/Sacramento%20River%20Ecological%20Flows%20Study%20FINAL%20
1-9-08%20MASTER.pdf; State Water Resources Control Board, “Water Quality Control Plan for the San
Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary” (1995), 37.
45 State Water Resources Control Board, “Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Estuary” (1995), 37; Dept. of Water Resources, “Redd Dewatering and Juvenile Steelhead and
Chinook Salmon Stranding in the Lower Feather River, 2002-2003,” http://orovillerelicensing.water.ca.gov/pdf_
docs/F10_Task_3C_interim_report.pdf.
46 Peter Baker and J. Emil Morhardt, “Survival of Chinook Salmon Smolts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and
Pacific Ocean,” Fish Bulletin 179(2) (2001): 171.
47 Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Water Resources, “Environmental Water Account,” Draft Supplemental
EIS/EIR (2007), at 4-17 to 4-18.
48 Ibid. at 4-22.
49 Peter Baker and J. Emil Morhardt, “Survival of Chinook Salmon Smolts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and
Pacific Ocean,” Fish Bulletin 179(2) (2001): 163, 171; Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Water Resources,
“Environmental Water Account,” Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR (2007), at 4-14, 4-29.
50 State Water Resources Control Board, “Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Estuary” (May 1995); State Water Resources Control Board, “Water Quality Control Plan for the
San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary” (2006), 27; The Bay Institute et al., “Petition to List the
San Francisco Bay Delta Population of Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) as endangered under the Endangered
Species Act” (Aug. 8, 2007), at 34-36.
51 Ted Sommer et al., “The Collapse of Pelagic Fishes in the Upper San Francisco Estuary,” Fisheries 32 (2007):270277; K. M. Kuivila and G. E. Moon, “Potential Exposure of Larval and Juvenile Delta Smelt to Dissolved Pesticides
in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California,” in Early Life History of Fishes in the San Francisco Estuary and
Watershed, ed. F. Feyrer, L. R. Brown, R. L. Brown, and J. Orsi (American Fisheries Society, 2004), 229-242.
52 Richard C. Dugdale et al., “The role of Ammonium and Nitrate in Spring Bloom Development in San Francisco
Bay,” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 73 (2007): 17-29.
53 See note 51, supra.
54 Ted Sommer et al., “California’s Yolo Bypass: Evidence That Flood Control Can Be Compatible With Fisheries,
Wetlands, Wildlife, and Agriculture,” Fisheries 26 (2001):6-16; Ted Sommer et al., “Floodplain as Habitat for
Native Fish: Lessons From California’s Yolo Bypass,” in California Riparian Systems: Processes and Floodplain
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 32 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
Management, Ecology, and Restoration, ed. P. M. Faber (2001 Riparian Habitat and Floodplains Conference
Proceedings, Riparian Habitat Joint Venture, Sacramento, California, 2003), 81-87.
55 Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, “Our Vision for the California Delta” (December 2007), 29.
56 Peter Baker and J. Emil Morhardt, “Survival of Chinook Salmon Smolts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and
Pacific Ocean,” Fish Bulletin 179(2) (2001): 166; B. McFarlane et al, “Survival and Migratory Patterns of Central
Valley Juvenile Salmonids: Overview,” poster for the CalFed Program (2007), http://californiafishtracking.ucdavis.
edu/MacFarlane_Overview.pdf; Department of Fish and Game, “Acoustic Tagging in San Joaquin River Seeks to
Solve Salmon Mystery,” www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/salmon/salmontagging.html; Peter Ottsen, “DFG Moves to
Solve Salmon Mystery,” Stockton Record, May 28, 2008.
57 P.C.F.F.A. v. Gutierrez, Case No. 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GSA, 2008 WL 2223070 (E.D. Cal., May 20, 2008), slip
op. at 53.
58 Ibid.
59 NRDC v. Kempthorne, 506 F.Supp.2d 322 (E.D. Cal. 2007); California Resources Agency, “Pelagic Fish Action
Plan” (March 2007), 13-16.
60 Testimony of Peter B. Moyle, Center for Watershed Sciences and Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation
Biology, University of California, Davis, before the California Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, April
17, 2008.
61 Public Policy Institute of California, “Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,” (2008), ix, 60,
Appendix J.
62 California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 160-05: “California Water Plan Update 2005”; Pacific
Institute, “California Water 2030: An Efficient Future,” 33; California Department of Water Resources, “Dayflow
Database,” www.iep.ca.gov/dayflow/output/index.html.
63 16 U.S.C. §§ 1536, 1539.
64 “Endangered and Threatened Species: Establishment of Species of Concern List, Addition of Species to Species of
Concern List, Description of Factors for Identifying Species of Concern, and Revision of Candidate Species List
Under the Endangered Species Act,” 69 Fed. Reg. 19975 (April 15, 2004); California Department of Fish and
Game, “State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California,” www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/
cnddb/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf; California Department of Fish and Game, “Sacramento Splittail,” www.dfg.ca.gov/
habcon/cgi-bin/read_one.asp?specy=fish&idNum=64; “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Petition
to List the San Francisco Bay-Delta Population of the Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) as Endangered,” 73
Fed. Reg. 24911 (May 6, 2008); California Department of Fish and Game, press release, “DFG Seeks Input on
Proposed Longfin Smelt Regulation,” May 29, 2008, www.dfg.ca.gov/news/news08/08047.html.
65 NRDC v. Kempthorne, 506 F.Supp.2d 322 (E.D. Cal. 2007).
66 P.C.F.F.A. v. Gutierrez, Case No. 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GSA, 2008 WL 2223070 (E.D. Cal., May 20, 2008).
67 Cal. Fish and Game Code §§ 2050 et seq.
68 Dept. of Fish and Game, “State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California,” www.dfg.
ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf.
69 Cal. Fish and Game Code § 2081.
70 Watershed Enforcers v. Department of Water Resources, Case No. RG06292124 (Alameda Superior Court, March 22,
2007).
71 P.L. 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600, §§ 3402, 3406(a).
72 d. § 3406(b)(2).
73 Id. § 3406(b)(1).
74 Id. § 3407(c).
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 33 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
75 Environmental Defense Fund, “Finding the Water” (2005), 10-15, www.edf.org/documents/4898_FindingWater.
pdf.
76 San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Case Nos. 1:97-CV-6140 OWW, 1:98-CV5261 OWW (E.D. Cal.).
77 Alan Lufkin, ed., California’s Salmon and Steelhead: The Struggle to Restore an Imperiled Resource (Berkeley:
University of California Press 1991), 28.
78 Cal. Fish & Game Code § 6902.
79 State Water Resources Control Board, “Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Estuary,” (May 1995), 18, 28-29; State Water Resources Control Board, “Water Quality Control
Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary,” (2006), 14, 33-34.
80 Robert Firpo, “The Plain “Dam!” Language of Fish & Game Code Section 5937: How California’s Clearest Statute
Has Been Diverted From Its Legislative Mandate,” 11 Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 101- 119 (2005).
81 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Patterson, 333 F.Supp.2d 906 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
82 Brian E. Gray, “In Search of Bigfoot: The Common Law Origins of Article X, Section 2 of the California
Constitution,” 17 Hastings Con. L.Q. 225 (1989); Brian Gray, “The Property Right in Water,” 9 Hastings W.Nw J.
Envtl. L. & Pol’y 1 (2002).
83 National Audubon Society v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.3d 419 (1983); California Trout, Inc. v. State Water Resources
Control Bd., 207 Cal.App.3d 585 (1989).
84 Office of the Governor, press release, “Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Legislation, Executive Order to Develop Strategic
Vision for Delta,” Sept. 26, 2006, http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4150/.
85 Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, “Our Vision for the California Delta” (December 2007).
86 California Department of Water Resources, “An Initial Assessment of Dual Delta Water Conveyance” (May 2008),
www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2008/061908assessmentdual.pdf.
87 Mike Taugher, “A 75-Year Promise No Longer Holds Water,” Contra Costa Times, Feb. 24, 2008.
88 Third Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, NRDC v. Kempthorne, Case No.
05-CV-01207-OWW-GSA (E.D. Cal., April 8, 2008).
89 Declaration of Kirk C. Rodgers, NRDC v. Kempthorne, Case No. 05-CV-01207-OWW-GSA (E.D. Cal., July 13,
2006).
90 Bureau of Reclamation, “Central Valley Project: Schedule of Historical and Projected Irrigation Water Deliveries,
Schedule A-12A (January 20, 2004), p.28, www.usbr.gov/mp/cvpwaterrates/ratebooks/irrigation/2004/index.
html; Third Supplemental Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, NRDC v. Kempthorne, Case No.
05-CV-01207-OWW-GSA (E.D. Cal., April 8, 2008).
91 California Department of Water Resources, “Dayflow Database,” www.iep.ca.gov/dayflow/output/index.html.
92 Environmental Working Group, “California Water Subsidies,” http://archive.ewg.org/reports/Watersubsidies/part1.
php (estimating that in 2002 CVP contractors paid less than 2% of the price paid by Los Angeles residents).
93 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Alfalfa, Irrigation Subsidies and the Competition for California Water.”
(1999, 2006).
94 Bay Institute et al. v. United States, 87 Fed.Appx. 637, 639-40 (2004).
95 Declaration of Bruce Oppenheim at 9:13-14, P.C.F.F.A. v. Gutierrez, Case No. 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GSA (E.D.
Cal., May 15, 2008).
96 Plaintiff ’s Combined Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff ’s Motion for Immediate Injunctive Relief and in
Response to Federal Defendants’ Memorandum re: Interim Remedies at 7-8, P.C.F.F.A. v. Gutierrez, Case No.
1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GSA (E.D. Cal., May 28, 2008).
97 Ibid.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 34 Fish Out of Water: How Water Management in the Bay-Delta Threatens the Future of California's Salmon Fishery
98 Declaration of Bruce F. Oppenheim at 15-16, P.C.F.F.A. v. Gutierrez, Case No. 1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GSA
(E.D. Cal., May 15, 2008); Declaration of Christina Swanson, Ph.D., at 22-38, P.C.F.F.A. v. Gutierrez, Case No.
1:06-cv-00245-OWW-GSA (E.D. Cal., May 27, 2008).
99 U.S. Department of the Interior, “Central Valley Project and State Water Project Operations Criteria and Plan
Biological Assessment” (May 16, 2008), ch. 11.
Natural Resources Defense Council
I 35 Blank Page 36